CM Sukhu says Himachal won't challenge high court decision on CBI probe into chief engineer's death
Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu said on Monday that his government would not challenge the Himachal Pradesh High Court's direction for a CBI inquiry into the death of HPPCL Chief Engineer Vimal Negi, but disagreed with the court's remark that no IPS officer from the state cadre should be part of the investigation.
Sukhu also acknowledged internal differences within the police, which had come to the fore in connection with the death of the Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd chief engineer. However, he said indiscipline would not be tolerated in the police or any other department.
'I do not agree with the court's comment barring Himachal Pradesh officers from the CBI probe team. I have just one question—how many judges from Himachal Pradesh are in the Shimla high court?' he said.
The chief minister said that before submitting his affidavit to the court, DGP Atul Verma had visited his office and informed him about its contents. Sukhu further stated that he had then told the DGP that if Vimal Negi's family wanted a CBI investigation, he and his government were ready to hand over the case to the central agency.
Sukhu said, 'I had also instructed Additional Chief Secretary Onkar Sharma, who was assigned to conduct a fact-finding probe into the death of Vimal Negi, to record the statements of officers who were accused of harassment and creating a toxic work environment at Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd (HPPCL). However, ACS Onkar Sharma submitted his report bypassing the office of the advocate-general. Likewise, DGP Atul Verma filed his affidavit in the high court without informing the AG's office.'
On May 23, a single-judge bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel ordered that the investigation, led by Shimla Superintendent of Police Sanjeev Gandhi, be handed over to the CBI, with the condition that no IPS officer from the Himachal Pradesh cadre be part of the agency's Special Investigation Team (SIT).
Interacting with the media for the first time since SP Sanjeev Gandhi and DGP Atul Verma came face to face over submitting contradictory affidavits in court, Sukhu said, 'I accept that there are differences within the police department, which came to light during the investigation into Chief Engineer Vimal Negi's death. From day one, our intent has been to ensure justice for Negi's family. He was an honest, dedicated, and brilliant officer.'
Accusing the Opposition BJP of politicising the issue, Sukhu criticised Leader of the Opposition Jairam Thakur. 'Jairam Thakur should speak based on facts rather than hearsay. The Pekhubela Solar Power Project in Una district had been commissioned well before Vimal Negi joined HPPCL in June last year,' the Congress leader said, seeking to reject allegations linking Negi's death to discrepancies in the power project.
Vimal Negi's body was recovered in Bilaspur on March 18, eight days after he went missing.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Why investigators cannot summon lawyers
The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that police or prosecuting agencies summoning legal professionals for advising their clients infringed on the rights of advocates and threatened the legal profession's autonomy. 'Counsel who are engaged in their legal practice have certain rights and privileges guaranteed because of the fact that they are legal professionals, and also due to statutory provisions,' the apex court said. It made the observations during a hearing involving a Gujarat-based lawyer, who was summoned by police for securing bail for his client in a loan dispute case. This came days after the Supreme Court Bar Association condemned the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to two senior advocates of the top court, Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal, on June 12 and June 18 respectively. The lawyers were summoned in connection with the agency's probe into the allotment of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) by Care Health Insurance Ltd to Rashmi Saluja, former chairperson of Religare Enterprises. Is attorney-client communication privileged? Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, which replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, communications between legal advisers and their clients are privileged, meaning they cannot be disclosed to a third party. Section 132 of the BSA states that an advocate is not allowed to disclose any communication, even after employment has ceased, except in three circumstances: if the client consents to it; the communication pertains to illegal purposes; and the advocate observes criminal activity being carried out during the employment. A lawyer is also exempted from testifying or revealing conversations with their client, whether made in oral, written, or electronic form. No other professionals, including chartered accountants, company secretaries, and cost accountants, have this privilege. What have courts said on such summons to lawyers? Over the years, courts have asserted that police or prosecution agencies cannot issue summons to lawyers for advising their clients. In A.V. Pavithran v. CBI (2024), the Bombay High Court quashed summons issued by the Inspector General (IG) of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in Goa to Advocate A V Pavithran. The summons required Pavithran to appear before the IG as the agency wanted to question him in connection with a case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, involving his client whose bank accounts had been frozen by the CBI. In its order, the court noted that any legal advice rendered is not subject to disclosure under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 132 of the BSA). 'The rule is 'once privileged, always privileged'. Under Section 126, an Advocate is not permitted to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional employment,' the court said. In Praram Infra v. State of M.P., the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in March 2025, quashed summons issued by Indore's Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) to Advocate Rahul Maheshwari, who represented the petitioner in the case. In this instance also, the court cited Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act in its order as the reason for quashing the summons. The High Court said that such summons should not be issued, especially when the advocate is neither an accused nor a witness.
New Indian Express
3 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Madras HC orders CBI probe into bank loan ‘fraud' by sugar mill in Kancheepuram
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has ordered a CBI probe into an alleged bank loan fraud and illegal sale of the hypothecated machinery committed by Padmaadevi Sugars Limited in Kancheepuram running into Rs 100 crore. The order was passed by Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy on a petition filed by Mylapore-based Srinidhi Finance Private Limited, one of the creditors of the firm. The petitioner approached the court after the CBI refused to register an FIR, initially citing lack of adequate documents, declaration of the factory's bank accounts as fraudulent and the government's withdrawal of consent to CBI to register cases. It alleged that the factory was under liquidation but had been selling the hypothecated machinery in a stealthy manner. The CBI shall register a case based on the complaint filed by Indian Overseas Bank on August 3, 2022, and other banks and the information they have furnished; and the preliminary enquiry shall be completed within three weeks, the judge ordered. He also ordered the CBI to file the final report within a year's time. 'Given the facts and circumstances of the case, where the amount involved is said to be around `100 crore worth of plant and machinery that is said to be sold and the amounts misappropriated, I am of the view that this is a fit case to be entrusted to the first respondent for investigation,' Justice Chakravarthy said in the recent order. Referring to the sale of the hypothecated machinery, the judge directed the CBI to book cases for cheating, and in the case of any officials colluding with the firm for undue pecuniary benefits, sections of Prevention of Corruption Act shall be slapped on them.
Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Himachal: Emergency was murder of Constitution, says Jai Ram, Cong hits back
Calling the imposition of emergency, the 'dark chapter of democracy', leader of Opposition Jai Ram Thakur on Wednesday said, 'It was the murder of the Constitution. Such a step was never taken by any democratic government in the world in the past. This is due to one person, her ambitions and becoming bigger than the Constitution of the country,' terming the emergency day as a 'black day'. Himachal leader of Opposition Jai Ram Thakur (File) 'Emergency was the product of the Congressmen's evil mentality. The country's then Prime Minister, late Indira Gandhi, mistook the Constitution of India as the Constitution of Indira,' said former chief minister. Thakur said, 'Unfortunately, even today the Congress does not accept its wrongdoings. That is why when the Sukhu government came to power, it brought the first Bill in the legislative assembly to stop the 'Loktantra Prahari Samman' amount started by our government.' 'Slogans like 'Indira is India and India is Indira' reflected that mentality of Congress,' former state president and MP Suresh Kashyap said, while speaking at a programme in Baddi. Kashyap said that the declaration of Emergency in 1975 was not the result of any national crisis, but it was a strategy of a scared Prime Minister to save power, which was imposed due to the challenge posed by the judiciary. 'Indira Gandhi misused Article 352 under the pretext of 'internal disturbance', while at that time there was no war, no rebellion and no external attack, it was just the stubbornness to neutralise the decision of Allahabad high court to cancel Indira's electoral membership and save her chair,' said Kashyap. Indira Gandhi used the hammer of emergency: Bindal BJP state president Rajiv Bindal said, '50 years ago, emergency was imposed in India. It was a dark chapter in the history of Independence.' 'Prime Minister of the country, Indira Gandhi, to save her throne, bypassed the decision of the HC and imposed emergency in the country and transformed the whole country into a dictatorship. After 50 years, the whole country should know about that horrific decision,' said Bindal. Sukhu lashes out at BJP Himachal chief minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu lashed out at the BJP for observing Emergency Day as a 'black day', saying the BJP was tarnishing the very Constitution that gave it power. 'Congress established democracy and framed the Constitution. Today, BJP is observing 'Murder of Democracy Day' by defaming that very Constitution. It is this Constitution that brought them to power, and now they are disrespecting it,' said Sukhu, taking a direct dig at the BJP's campaign.
